"Me gusta Vattel!"
- Fidel Castro
;-)
Posted on 03/13/2013 6:01:43 PM PDT by Fai Mao
On Mar. 8, reporter Carl Cameron on Special Report on Fox News Channel was surveying potential GOP 2016 presidential candidates. Then he raised Ted Cruz--one of the most brilliant constitutional lawyers ever to serve in the Senate--the new 41-year old Hispanic senator from Texas.
Cameron added, “But Cruz was born in Canada and is constitutionally ineligible” to run for president. While many people assume that, it’s probably not true.
Cameron was referring to the Constitution’s Article II requirement that only a “natural born citizen” can run for the White House.
No one is certain what that means. Citizenship was primarily defined by each state when the Constitution was adopted. Federal citizenship wasn’t clearly established until the Fourteenth Amendment was ratified in 1868. The Constitution is not clear whether it means you must be born on U.S. soil, or instead whether you must be born a U.S. citizen.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
I agree.
Isn't it astonishing that there are a group of us here that keep coming to the same or at least extremely similar conclusions regarding various legal cases and situations, such as Bellei? And the 14th Amendment?
Apparently, there are some of us here who know how to read and understand court cases.
Oh, yes. Screech CASTRO before you bother finishing the quote. How transparent.
But a very moderate use ought to be made of this right, and only in important or necessary cases. Liberty is the soul of abilities and industry: frequently a mechanic or an artist, after having long travelled abroad, is attracted home to his native soil by a natural affection, and returns more expert and better qualified to render his country useful services. If certain extraordinary cases be excepted, it is best in this affair to practise the mild methods of protection, encouragement, &c., and to leave the rest to that natural love felt by all men for the places of their birth.
;-)
Those who adhered to their communities as their primary allegiance, were natural born citizens of their communities, their States, and the United States that formed out of their communities.
This assertion is very easily disproved by a most obvious fact: if it were true there would be no need for Article II's Grandfather Clause.
What can I say? I gave you a quote from Vattel himself about what the law of nations is; you've quoted someone else quoting Vattel about how nations get formed. If you believe the law of nations governs how nations handle their internal affairs, I probably can't convince you otherwise.
A great many of the Founders were fluent in French as all well-educated men were in those days.
As they would need no 'translation', I fail to see the purpose of the comment.
You quoted a translation of Vattel to support your contention about what "natural-born citizen" means. Since so many Founders were fluent in French, they would not have needed that translation (or any translation--when you're fluent in a language, you just read it, you don't translate it). So there's no reason to think they thought "indigenes" meant the same thing as "natural-born citizen," especially given that the words "born" and "citizen" aren't even in the original.
Please source the English law in question.
I'm not sure there's an actual law that defines "natural-born subject." But there's lots of discussion of it in the Wong Kim Ark decision. One sample:
The English statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700). c. 6, entitled "An act to enable His Majesty's natural-born subjects to inherit the estate of their ancestors, either lineal or collateral, notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens,"....It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called "natural-born subjects."Look, I would very much like to have a discussion, but only with someone who wants to take an honest look at the evidence.
I'm sure you know that it's possible for someone to take an honest look at the evidence and still disagree with you. The problem is that I've been looking at the eligibility evidence for 5 years now, and yes, I've pretty much drawn my own conclusions quite some time ago. You haven't presented any evidence that I haven't seen before. As you probably feel the same about me, I'm perfectly happy to end the discussion here.
And, you believe that we, as Americans are obliged to slavishly adopt as our own Vattel's other views on citizenship?
Is it your conception of natural law that compels us to look to Vattel for the one and only true theory of citizenship?
It really doesn't get much crazier than this!
I quoted St. George Tucker about how OUR nation got formed.
St. George Tucker, was in the Revolutionary War and rose to the rank of Colonel. He communicated regularly with members of Congress and was appointed to the Virginia Court by President James Madison.
He's also the guy who just helped us fight off the government concerning the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.
St. George Tucker, Northwestern University Law Review Largely forgotten today, Tucker returned to some legal prominence last Term, when the majority in District of Columbia v. Heller cited his annotated Blackstone’s Commentaries as proof that the Second Amendment had originally been understood as an individual right to arms.
-------
I'm not sure there's an actual law that defines "natural-born subject."
The English statute of 11 & 12 Will. III (1700)
Okay. There's a 'notwithstanding their father or mother were aliens,"....' line concerning inheritance.
Jus sanguines. That a Right of Blood.
It may be observed that, throughout that statute, persons born within the realm, although children of alien parents, were called "natural-born subjects."
Jus soli citizens, Right of Soil..... but we don't have a King, so I really don't see that power as material here.
-----
The problem is that I've been looking at the eligibility evidence for 5 years now, and yes, I've pretty much drawn my own conclusions quite some time ago.
I truly appreciate your candor. I've been at it for a bit over a decade, though I admittedly floundered a couple of those by trying to start with the US Codes. Hoooo-boy!
I get so wrapped up reading through old books and through the Library of Congress, I now refer to it as DHO - Doing Hard-time Online...cause I look up and I've lost like 3 hours. LOL!
Like I said, enjoying the heck out of the conversation here. As long as its kept HONEST. That's my biggest concern.
Castro agreed with Vattel that citizens should only be held captive so long as they remained useful to the State. Castro, like Vattel, was happy to let some citizens escape if he didn't want or need them anymore.
Like Vattel, Castro just believes that the State has first claim on the labor of its citizens.
Don't you agree with Vattel about that feature of citizenship?
Don't you believe in natural law?
Don't you believe in READING COMPREHENSION?
Saying we have to take the FIRST part of something without being able to consider the LAST part of something is like saying a court has to hear a case but can make no decisions.
-----
Get your Castro issue checked. Seriously.
Not true, Ray. The grandfather clause was passed to honor and not offend those who had come here from other places, who were not natural born Americans, who had risked their lives and fortunes to help us gain Independence.
Among these were James Wilson, Founding Father and signer of the Declaration of Independence, a "major force in drafting the United States Constitution," and one of our first set of Supreme Court Justices.
Wilson was born in Scotland and didn't come here until he was about 24 years old. If you read the debates of the Constitutional Convention, you can tell that he was a bit offended at the suggestion that some like himself who had joined this country from other lands and risked their lives to help us succeed might be excluded from positions in the new government.
Also in this category was one of our very most prominent Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton, who might well have been President if he had not died in a duel while still in his 40s. Without Hamilton, we might very well not have the Constitution, because he was the principal author of The Federalist, a highly influential series of 85 newspaper essays in which he urged ratification of the Constitution in the critical State of New York.
Without the grandfather clause, neither Hamilton nor Wilson would have been eligible to be President. It was to honor and reward men such as these that the grandfather clause was passed.
Vattel, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law, Book 1, Chapter 20, § 240
Okay. Scrolled back through and realized I'd missed a point you'd made.
Assuming 'ou' in French means and operates the same as an 'or' in English.
This is not an either 'or', it's a refining 'or'.
The difference is it's like someone asking if you want coffee OR tea. You have 2 choices.
If someone asks if you want dessert, OR pie, you know there is only one choice because the dessert IS pie.
LOL! Didn't mean to turn into an edition of Little Red Schoolhouse. :-)
"It must also be observed, that individuals are not so perfectly free in the economy or government of their affairs as not to be subject to the laws and regulations of police made by the sovereign. For instance, if vineyards are multiplied to too great an extent in a country which is in want of corn, the sovereign may forbid the planting of the vine in fields proper for tillage; for here the public welfare and the safety of the state are concerned. When a reason of such importance requires it, the sovereign or the magistrate may oblige an individual to sell all the provisions in his possession above what are necessary for the subsistence of his family, and may fix the price he shall receive for them. The public authority may and ought to hinder monopolies, and suppress all practices tending to raise the price of provisions — to which practices the Romans applied the expressions annonam incendere, comprimere, vexare." (Vattel, at §255.)
There you have it - "annonam incendere, comprimere, vexare" (and throw in a little hocus pocus) and natural law quite naturally sanctions government regulation of the economy and government price fixing!
Isn’t that what happens?? Is there a point here, other than to desperately try to smear Vattel?? Next, I guess you’ll start smearing all the SCOTUS justices who have quoted Vattel in their decisions. Good luck with that.
Nice colors
Thanks. ;-)
In view of Vattel's principles, red seemed a natural choice.
They were naturalized by the Declaration of Independence.
LOL! Good point.
Guess it's time for 'nocturnal troll-us' to come out.
I guess the point would be that if Vattel's imaginings about "natural law" led him to conclude that (1) the State has "first claim" on the labor of its citizens such that it can prevent free citizens from trying to escape to another country (§ 74), (2) that taxation should be progressive and based upon the communist "from each according to his abilities" formulation (§ 240), and (3) that government regulation and government price fixing is appropriate (§ 255), then maybe liberty-loving Americans will be reluctant to permit Vattel devotees to shove down their throats their imaginings about what they think Vattel might have imagined about the term "natural born citizen" if only he had ever heard the term.
The only word for this Vattel fetish is crazy. The people of the United States and their electors (who are authorized by our Constitution to resolve disputes about candidate qualifications) are never, ever going to buy any of this Vattel baloney.
You claim Art. II's grandfather clause was to honor persons such as Wilson, in which case Wilson would be considered a citizen.
You also claim:
Prior to the Revolution, Americans had allegiance both to their communities and to the King of England.
And prior to the Revolution, those two allegiances were not in conflict.
At the time of the Revolution, their community and the King parted ways. It was required that Americans choose which allegiance was their primary allegiance, and which they were going to follow.
Those who adhered to their communities as their primary allegiance, were natural born citizens of their communities, their States, and the United States that formed out of their communities.
In this case Wilson would be considered a natural born citizen.
So which is it? Your assertions contradict each other.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.